I’m going to ask you to use your common sense. If your nine-year-old consistently lies to you, would you believe his next story? There comes a point when you’d have to say, “Shame on me!” (Remember the wisdom: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!”)

The Russians did not influence the election. The Russians did not hack the DNC server. Hillary lost because she WAS NOT “the most qualified candidate ever”! The Democratic Party committed suicide.

I have as much evidence the Russians didn’t do it, as the CIA, FBI, President Obama and Hillary, have that they did do it. So who are you going to believe? Who has the better track record of speaking the truth?

The “smoking gun” President Obama presented to prove, this time, he’s telling the truth: a 13-page report authored by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. (Before you read further, ask yourself, “Have these agencies ever been known to lie;1 have they ever deceived the public?”2)

The preface to their report has this disclosure: “This report is provided ‘as is’ for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within …”3 In other words, “we’re not standing behind anything in this report; it may or may not be true.”

Is this the level of accuracy, we use to declare war? I know we didn’t declare war. But is it acceptable to use “almost facts” to expel 35 Russian diplomats, confiscate a 45-acre Russian-owned Maryland estate,4 and implement new sanctions against Darth Vladimir and his evil empire?

In response to our actions, the master chessman, Putin, moved for checkmate. He chose to ignore Obama. Having already demonstrated President Obama’s irrelevance in the Syria/Turkey peace accord,5 Putin has announced Russia will not respond in-kind to the United States, but rather, will wait for Trump. Putin said he would not stoop to Obama’s “’kitchen’ dipolmacy.”6

Before this article ends, I will provide evidence for my position: the Russians didn’t do it. But before that, let’s deal with why this topic is important. I’ll assume you are interested in your financial future.

Jim Rickards, author of Currency Warsand Death of Money, says the value of the dollar rests on a three-legged stool: Russia, China and Saudi Arabia. According to Rickards, those countries, either individually or working in unison, could significantly change the value of the dollar. Since the dollar is simply a piece of paper, with no intrinsic value, it depends on what others think. If no one chooses to accept it, it is worth nothing. If there are more dollars, especially overseas, than demand, then the dollar’s purchasing power drops. Since most of our dollar-denominated paper is held overseas, it is important, how the world views the United States of America. Think of the dollar, as our country’s “stock certificate.”

If Russia, China or Saudi Arabia decided it was time to hurt the U.S.A., and the value of the dollar, then we may find goods and services costing much more. In other words, the dollar would lose purchasing power. (In future articles, I will explain how this may happen.)

Let’s assume Rickards is right. During the past eight years, has President Obama enhanced or hurt our relationship with Russia, China and Saudi Arabia? Could it be the fake news of Russia interfering with our election is just another step by the outgoing administration to poke the bear? Is it possible, during these past eight years, this administration has attempted to create a crisis with Russia, China and Saudi Arabia?

Even Fox News played along with the Russian hacking story.7 The corporate media have accepted this narrative. Why? Perhaps it has to do with the corporate connection. In a form of fascism, our government’s interests and corporate business interests are intertwined. Maybe, the corporate media have an objective of keeping our government, generally, respectable. Gone are the days of true journalism. Gone are the days of the media being a method of holding the government in check.8

Since we can’t trust our sound-bite media, here are some sources for discussions on whether the Russians hacked our election, or attempted to influence our election.

Dr. Stephen Cohen is one of two top Russian experts in America. He is professor emeritus of Russian studies, history, and politics at New York University and Princeton University. He voted for Obama twice. In one of his December interviews, he discussed his skepticism of this Russian story. In addition to his belief the Russians had the ability to enter and exit a server without a trace, in this interview he says it would not have been in Putin’s best interest to interfere with the U.S. election. Cohen explained, Putin has bigger objectives. (John Batchelor, December 13, 2016 interview of Stephen Cohen, Tales of the New Cold War.)

Author and filmmaker Oliver Stone is not a Trump supporter or a Republican. In an article titled, Oliver Stone Slams The Establishment’s “The Russians Are Coming” Narrative, Stone writes, ”The (New York) Times and other mainstream media have surprisingly evaded any contrary evidence, such as that presented by Craig Murray, ex-ambassador and Wikileaks spokesman who says he was given the information (leaked emails) in a Washington park by a Democratic ‘insider’ who was disgusted by the behavior of the DNC; Murray then gave it to Wikileaks. This was a ‘leak,’ not a ‘hack,’ and always seemed to me the likely source for this scandal…”9

More important than Stone’s comments, are his endnotes. Stone highlights the memo from six former intelligence specialists who explained the extent which the NSA can track internet activity. They explained how easy it would be to identify Russian hacking. Then they write: “The evidence that should be there is absent; otherwise, it would surely be brought forward, since this could be done without any danger to sources and methods. Thus, we conclude that the emails were leaked by an insider – as was the case with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. Such an insider could be anyone in a government department or agency with access to NSA databases, or perhaps someone within the DNC.”10

John McAfee, founder of a computer security software company, said, “If it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians.”11 This supports Dr. Cohen’s view, which he received from a MIT professor.

This begs the question, “Why hasn’t the corporate media—I don’t know, let’s say, Fox News—interviewed internet security experts like McAfee, Cohen’s MIT contact, the six intel veterans, Edward Snowden or others to determine if this was a credible story?” Why didn’t the corporate media investigate the facts? Why has the corporate media chosen to keep this story alive by using uninformed political talking heads as their authority for internet security forensics?

If you haven’t already done so, do your own research. Oliver Stone’s endnotes are an important archive (click here). In addition to how this may impact the dollar, understanding the truth is essential. It gives us an inside look into the media and the swamp. What does it say about House Speaker Paul Ryan, who fully supported Obama’s actions? What does it say about Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who thought Obama’s actions were long overdue? What does it say about former United Nations ambassador John Bolton, who implied Obama didn’t go far enough?12 (Let’s hope Bolton doesn’t end up on the Trump team!)

This fake news story is a great way to end 2016. If we learn from this, it will give us greater insight into 2017. Can we get to January 20th, without President Obama doing more damage?

“Dollar” Bill is a real guy, with real knowledge on our nation’s financial calamity, and real solutions for what must be done to dig ourselves out of the hole we are in. Due to his career, Bill must remain “disguised” to protect his position. “Bill” loves America, sees the impending cliff we are all headed towards, and hopes that by sharing his inside knowledge of the failed monetary policy in our nation, that a fiscal “nuclear” event can be averted.